Personally, I like the Early Access model. Do wish they would finish the product in a timely manner though, but when you’re the only game in town…
And, this time it’s a Viper!!! Bring it on!!!
The Viper is almost out?! I figured it was a year out at best. I am not a buyer until it gets cheap someday. But I am curious if my old BMS preflight would get it safely off the ground.
I am currently working through BMS in my spare time. Such a great sim. Fantastic. I’m very keen to see how it translates to DCS as well
1 Like
Exactly.
I think there’s a reason why we don’t have several developers doing what ED does…
The closest sim with a similar business model is IL-2 Great Battles. They aren’t exactly buying Ferraris to all their employees, either…
2 Likes
So do I. I just used way more words to say it. 
I realize that. However, there was no explicit or implied guarantee that those bugs would be fixed or features added. I had an unpleasant interaction with RAZBAM concerning their Harrier for FSX - they moved to DCS and never fixed a glaring bug. (But now they gave me the DCS Mig-19 so all is forgiven. 
)
So yes, in some manner software developers have been gestating this business model for decades. The big–and I think brilliant–paradox shift is how software developers have leveraged this fact into the Early Access business/development model.
It is a win-win, even for those customers that do not embrace early access. Software developers receive income before a product is finished thus enjoying some financial stability. The customer (eventually) gets a product this is likely much better–more features; less bugs–than they would if it had been “rushed out the door” to meet a deadline.
LOL. I just made up what I thought was a ridiculous complaint. I haven’t flown the FA-18 in so long, I had no idea in the state of the radar development. I would argue (in a different thread) that in the real jet, TWS is a bit more important and used a bit more, but this is the sim we are talking about and no DCS FA-18 pilots are held to NATOPS tactics.
While I haven’t flown the FA-18 in quite a while, it has nothing to do with the state of its development. Rather, I have fallen in love with the DCS Mig line of fighters–the Mig-19 and Mig-21 being may all time favorites! 
5 Likes
Found this while going through the ED forums - take a read:
2 Likes
That’s worth reading.
My key take away:
- we would not be profitable.
- we would be vulnerable to customer ‘fade’ as they switch to other products or genres.
Which to me likely means without EA we would have a “What ever happened to DCS” thread that we would post to while we weren’t whining about FSX@War…
2 Likes
I can imagine similar situations.
If we expect continuous development, they need continuous income…and the only guaranteed method for that is a word many of us dislike - subscription. However, that system another separate topic all in itself.
If EA is working for now, then I guess they should keep it. I guess I’ll just have to buy more modules, even if they only collect virtual dust in the virtual hanger. In itself, that’s not so bad - at anytime I can switch to something new without having to get out the wallet, and the EA savings are quite good.
3 Likes
That should be chiseled into granite somewhere.
I also look at modules purchases as continued investment into the base product. Yes, I know ATC, weather, AI could stand to be improved in that base product, but the graphics overhauls, mission editor improvements, and overall unit fidelity and atmosphere have really grown over the years. I know by buying stuff, even if I don’t use them as much as I’d want to (cough…looking at you M2000C) I’m helping support that base product too. I can also see the viewpoint that $40 to $80 on a module might seem steep just to do that…so I would expect everyone to do it. But just know that modules you DO buy and enjoy also contribute to DCS World as a whole. At least…that’s how I look at it.
2 Likes
A-10 keep er goin.bmp (5.9 MB)
The improvements are staggering, when you can look back. Here’s a old screenshot from DCS 1.2 or 1.5, I forget exactly what version. Flying up along the coast north of Sukhumi I believe.
Compared to the present DCS, this looks flat and gloomy.
2 Likes
At the same time, your $80 only goes so far. Therefore, I generally make a point of buying the modules as they are released to support the continued development. After all, the modules don’t come out all that often. I do the same thing to some extent with 3rd party devs for X-Plane (although I’m having a hard time keeping up with OrbX right now!)…
1 Like
The fear I have with this business model is it disincentivises (sp?) completion. Once a product is called “complete” with a hefty package of training missions and a sweet multi-stage campaign, its not like a wave of first-time buyers start pulling out their cards. The module developers know this. Once the early-adopters stop funding, development slows to a trickle.
I buy not for an expectation of promises met someday, but because I am happy ENOUGH with the current offering as is. That was true with everything I’ve purchased so far. The F-14 was well worth it just to fly it around the boat. Same with the Harrier. That is not true in my case for the F-16.
4 Likes
The way I like to look at development (all types, not just early access), is to ask the question, “Could I do better?” Granted I’m not a programmer by trade, but trying to put yourself in their shoes makes decisions that could otherwise be questionable seem much more reasonable.
People are complaining about feature X not being implemented now? Well, I still needed to (and did) fix the flight model, which otherwise would have led to even more complaining. A supposedly avoidable bug slips into a release? I’ve made plenty of “avoidable” mistakes, we’re human. And so on and so forth.
Now sometimes there are bonehead moves every now and then, and the answer to my above question is “yes, I could have done better.” But by and large, those experiences are in the minority. I also like to give developers the benefit of the doubt in situations that are somewhere in the middle. I genuinely believe they want to produce a good product and make their customers happy.
At the end of the day, developers aren’t just code producing machines. They’re people too. Incredibly, some seem to forget that.
7 Likes
Gooooooooood.
1 Like
If my above post reads as a criticism of ED itself, that was not my intent. I am not thrilled with their model but I don’t think they have a choice. And as it is, it is WAY better than the extortion that large commercial developers impose on their customers. ED gave us, for free, the stunning rework of Georgia. And soon we will get, also pro-bono, new textures for the A-10C. The situation is what it is. And it happens to be pretty good. At least with this model we can vote with our wallets. Whatever we choose to forego will not detract from the game we have.
5 Likes
One thing I will say that I think is relevant when we discuss other game development studios is DAYZ standalone
This game has been in early access for the better part of a decade and is still clunky, broken, unfinished and badly optimised with major game breaking flaws and problems that have never been addressed.
Now this on it’s own is nothing unusual except they just released a paid DLC for it. Now this I find abhorrent. I was a day 1 purchaser of DAYZ and i have never recieved the game I paid for which was in fairness my fault entirely for early adopting but to release DLC to me shows a shocking disregard for the integrity of your business model and your client base.
ED may make a few mistakes but I’ve never heard of them doing anything so blatantly evil as this. We should have discussions about the subject obviously but in my opinion I think we get a good deal out of ED and the business model they have. I’m not a fan in the slightest of early access but that’s my decision and also my decision to buy into it or not. I dont feel we get treated unfairly by ED. Especially when I look at the MILLIONS and Millions raked in by DAYZ in 5 years and the paltry amount of work they have done in that time with the money brought in.
I think we get off lightly to be fair
6 Likes
The history of DayZ, having it followed since the inception of the mod, is riddled with management mistakes.
I dislike the DLC thing too but there’s deeper underlying errors the brought to that.
4 Likes
At the same time, your $80 only goes so far.
If it costs more than $80 dollars to develop a high fidelity module…then simply charge for it…I don’t think potential purchasers are particularly price-sensitive (look at the cost of hardware and peripherals)
I’d happily more for a completed model with manual, training missions and campaign.
Using revenue from a new early access module to complete older modules that have notionally been paid for buy the customer is just robbing peter to pay paul and could arguably fall down when the most popular planes (EG: F14/15/16/18) have all gone into EA and only more “niche” ones are left to release…
3 Likes